240. My concern is that if the Treasury were
really doing an environmental appraisal which has looked at the
options and then steered a way through for the long term, would
this be just too narrowly confined? Should it be taking on much
broader possibilities and options for consideration, some means
of assessment? If you were doing it, how would you do it?
(Mr Fergusson) I certainly say this is too narrow
to do what you want it to do, there is not much doubt about that.
I am not honestly sure that the PBR would be the place to do the
alternatives. It needs a broader debate, it needs something like
the CVTF, only better and deeper. It seems to me something like
that is the right forum where we actually get modelling in, where
we look at the whole lifecycle and we agree some strategic directions
there. It seems to me that then it would be for the Treasury to
say they think this is the way to get there. I am not honestly
sure that it should be a budget-led process, if you are looking
at the strategic level.

241. Which was the sponsoring Government department
for the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force?
(Mr Fergusson) It was DETR. Lord Macdonald chaired
it.

242. Would anyone else like to comment on this
issue of how we go about environmental appraisal in order to be
able to change direction?
(Mr Mumford) I should like to say that firstly we
are involved in a number of pilot projects on alternative fuels,
hydrogen, we are also the largest supplier of automotive LPG in
the country and we are leading in introducing clean Fuels. We
are very well placed to play a major role in any evaluation of
the alternatives and we are very happy to do that. The other thing
I would say is that it does require a pooling of knowledge from
a number of different technical sources. It does have to be a
technically led forum which achieves this.

Chairman

243. Coming back to the point about the narrowness
of the Government's present focus by comparison with the greater
width which you require, just how wide do you go? Part of the
point of fuel duty is to decrease the extent to which people use
petrol and motor and they use public transport as an alternative.
Surely it may be wrong, or would it, to confine it to cars and
fuel technology. Maybe you should include public transport and
the balance between public transport, railways, etcetera and private
cars. I am just wondering what sort of framework you think it
would be best to put this into.
(Mr Fergusson) That is a good point. On the one hand
you do need to look at the whole lifecycle of the fuels and that
is an important element to put in there, especially when you are
going to things like biofuels, hydrogen and so on. You really
have to look at that side of it. On the other hand, it is wise
not to look at the car as a system in its own right because yes,
there are broader issues as well in terms of the transport system,
in terms of demand for car travel for other modes and so on. None
of this is straightforward. They do all need technical input from
the individual business interests who are pursuing certain parts
of the fuel chain. Yes, they do also need an analysis of the transport
system. When you are setting up a lifecycle analysis you do actually
need independent scientific expertise which can help you set out
things like the system boundaries which you are going to look
at. If you do not get that right, then you can come up with some
very strange answers. It is not a straightforward process and
no one sectoral interest is really capable of finding the whole
answer.

Joan Walley

244. What do you feel the scope is in Germany,
given the support the German Government has given to research
on some of these issues, for factoring concerns about competitiveness
into this whole issue of environmental appraisal? If you were
two years, three years ahead of the game, further down the road
than we are, surely that has a tremendous part to play in terms
of added competitiveness of German operations, manufacturing processes,
over those in this country?
(Mr Frank) I can assure you that we always look for
the chance to be ahead of our competitors and we are happy if
the Government or Parliament can help us in that. We also have
some limitations and I have to confess that is the fuel itself.
Even if we have different opinions about the technology under
the hood of the vehicle, we need the same fuel. We are non-competitors
in terms of fuel, independent of the technology we want to use
or what type of vehicle we want to produce, for example buses,
trucks, passenger cars. We are both at that time competitors for
the vehicle itself, but we are not competitors for the fuel because
we know we do not have a chance in the future if we work for too
long on too many alternatives. We do have alternatives, round
about ten different ways of fuelling cars, from petrol and diesel
to electricity and whatever you can think of. We have proved that
we can use it, vehicles run on it, that is not the question for
the future. The question for the future is to decide on two or
preferably one alternative, otherwise society cannot afford it.
May I just add something more on a point you have raised? I would
go even further: we should not only look at the whole transport
system, not only at cars or buses, but the whole energy field.
The German Parliament has set up a committee, on which I am sitting
as an adviser, to look at sustainable energy supplies because
if the goal is a reduction of 50 per cent in CO2 or even 70 or
80 per cent by 2050, that means that it is not only the transport
system because in Germany this produces a little bit less than
20 per cent of all the CO2 emissions. Even if we shut down transport
completely, we would still have 80 per cent of CO2 emissions.
We must look for carbon-free energy in all the other areas and
we should do so immediately because they may help each other for
the production for the infrastructure. You are completely right
and I would go a step further even.

Chairman

245. So you need a transport focus and you need
an energy focus.
(Mr Frank) Correct.

Mrs Helen Brinton

246. Gordon Brown fairly recently announced
yet a further two pence per litre cut on ultra low sulphur petrol
(ULSP). This really seemed to come as a total surprise to quite
a lot of people, including the AA with whom we spoke last week.
They had not been aware that it was already very readily available
at the pump under different names and different guises. Why was
it not publicised before in a very upfront way as it is supposed
to be such a good thing?
(Mr Mumford) All I can say is that it was.

247. How did you go about it?
(Mr Mumford) In February of last year BP launched
what is now called ultra low sulphur petrol.

248. Cleaner unleaded.
(Mr Mumford) Yes. In other words, we did it in anticipation
of the incentive coming through. We launched it in Edinburgh with
quite a bit of press coverage, with the Scottish Minister for
Environment actually performing the opening. We advertised it
on all of the forecourts. We put it first into central Scotland
and the reason we put it into central Scotland was that our refinery
in Grangemouth was very well placed to make this fuel. We then
followed that up in the middle of the year with a similar launch
in the London area and rolled it out throughout the whole of the
South East of England. By the time that the one pence was actually
announced, 60 per cent of the unleaded petrol we were selling
was already ultra low sulphur in its quality. We had already brought
it in and we brought it in under a brand name, basically as a
piece of environmental marketing, using the name Cleaner Unleaded.
Other companies have done similar things, so there are other companies
out there with similar products, with somewhat similar names.
It has not been identified very clearly that it is exactly the
same product.

249. Do you think that is because of the different
names?
(Mr Mumford) There are two factors. The fact that
we are each using different names, some names like City Petrol
and things like that, would mean that people saw it as a slightly
different product but not necessarily realise that it was of the
same type of product. That is one factor. The more important factor
is the fact that we have introduced this product as a grade substitution.
The new product actually meets all of the specifications of the
old product. It is a narrowing down of the specifications, it
is a refinement, it is an improvement of the existing product.
We have brought it in basically by taking the product to the supply
chain and the dispensing chain that the previous product used
ie a total substitution. The reason we have done that is that
it is very much more cost effective to do it that way. If we were
to bring the product in with a completely different supply infrastructure,
then the additional cost would be prohibitive. Bringing it in
in this way means that we can actually bring it on to the forecourts
at the same price as the old product and deliver those environmental
benefits extremely efficiently. That is why we did it, but the
fact that the pump where you used to get your normal unleaded
fuel one day has one sticker on and the next day has a slightly
different sticker on means it is very easy not to notice that.
I know I do not usually look at the stickers on petrol pumps when
I am filling up. From a public point of view it is quite likely
that the change will have come and although the advertising is
there at the point of sale it would have passed them by and they
would not have realised that they were using the better fuel.
(Mr Beckwith) Another point on the name. When we chose
the name Cleaner Unleaded we did do some market research with
motorists. The result of that research was effectively that Cleaner
Unleaded best portrayed the benefits that the fuel would give.
We tested the name ultra low sulphur petrol and generally consumers
were not able to identify what the benefits of that fuel were.
This was obviously before the publicity around ultra low sulphur
petrol.

Chairman

250. Perhaps we ought to call it Gordon Brown.
That would be the best publicity you had ever had.
(Mr Beckwith) The name we chose worked well, at least
in portraying that there was an environmental benefit with this
fuel, which was why we chose that name. It was in good faith to
try to help customers understand what the benefits of the fuel
were.

Mrs Helen Brinton

251. I am sure it is a great name. Cleaner unleaded
sounds good. Surely there needs to be some sort of coalescing
with various oil companies. I am not a motorist. I have never
heard of City Fuel. I would not have known that was ultra low
sulphur and therefore nice fuel. Surely the message here is that
there has to be some coalescing with companies: whether it is
cleaner unleaded or whatever name, there should be one message
going out. Surely it makes sense?
(Mr Mumford) As the industry we have been trying to
put that message out. We have obviously been unsuccessful in getting
that message to the broader public. We share your objective.

252. Getting back to the actual fuel duty cut,
it is not per se, is it, it is only conditional on guaranteeing
nationwide access? Is that going to be a problem or is going to
be readily available?
(Mr Mumford) The introduction of ultra low sulphur
petrol nationwide has caused problems for some companies, it is
true. There are some challenges out there. When the product was
introduced, some companies decided it was a good idea, some companies
did not decide it was a good idea, because it was not incentivised
at that point. What has now happened is that the roll-out has
been accelerated rapidly. All of the major oil companies have
indicated a willingness and a commitment to get the product to
market. Everybody is trying extremely hard.

253. Timescale?
(Mr Mumford) The first of April is the target and
everybody is attempting to get 100 per cent cover by that date.
What we would be defining success as here is that everybody in
the country can find the product somewhere near them. That does
not mean to say that is available at absolutely every pump in
every petrol station, but that every town has got it somewhere
so that every member of the public has access.

254. Most oil companies, including yourselves,
have introduced ultra low sulphur petrol and ultra low sulphur
diesel well in advance of the European deadline of 2005.
(Mr Mumford) Yes.

255. That is great, but are they not being rather
pessimistic in Europe? Why was the deadline not tighter if it
is so simple and easy to achieve?
(Mr Mumford) The first thing I would say is that in
this country tax incentives were given for the early introduction
of these fuels. Those incentives were extremely effective. What
it means is that instead of a fixed deadline where everybody has
to change and people wait to the last minute because the fuel
is more expensive to make and then there is a bit of disorderly
introduction at that deadline, what happened in Britain was that
an incentive, initially of one pence on ultra low sulphur diesel
and then two pence, was announced. That then enabled the companies
who could introduce it easily to bring it in, so it became very
quickly available. As it became available it became the market
standard and then obliged other companies to follow. It was a
way of rolling it in over a period of a couple of years and it
actually meant you could start the introduction much earlier than
you would have been able to do had you said, here is a firm date
and everybody has to produce it on that date. It is a question
of taking the opportunity to move with the first mover as early
as possible rather than everybody having to wait until the last
mover was ready and then changing the whole lot.
(Mr Beckwith) It may have appeared easy to introduce
it quickly, but significant investments were involved in our refineries.
The reason that it is not 100 per cent coverage now and is going
to take some time to introduce is that more investments are required.
For a certain period of time some of the fuel volume will be made
up by imports from other parts of Europe. With the UK going ahead
of a lot of the rest of Europe in terms of incentivising this
fuel, it is easier to fulfil the UK demand from the European refining
system where it is just a proportion of European demand. If all
of Europe were trying to accelerate these fuels at the same time,
then it would not have been so easy to introduce them so quickly.

256. Gordon Brown's aim seems to be to move
the consumer along a hierarchy of green fuels and use a duty differential
as an incentive for that. You have already stated as a company
that you will pass on the two pence per litre duty reduction for
ultra low sulphur petrol when he implements in March of this year.
Is this permanent? Are you going to do this anyway? Oil prices
could go berserk but you will still do this.
(Mr Mumford) Yes; absolutely.

257. Great. That is a really great answer. Gordon
Brown cannot force you or any other oil company like yourselves
to ensure that this price differential is accessible and seen
at the pump. He cannot do that; he has no powers to do that. Is
this the big weakness in his schemes and plans? Is it a big weakness
in his plans to encourage people to shift to friendly fuels like
that?
(Mr Mumford) The important issue here is consumer
choice. If a consumer is faced with alternatives and those alternatives
are readily available then a differential like two pence, when
the fuel can be used equally well in everybody's vehicle, is such
a large incentive that it will actually move the consumer very,
very readily. Two pence is actually quite a lot of money.

258. It does not sound like much to me. Why
do you think it is going to make that difference?
(Mr Mumford) In terms of changing motorists' behaviour
when the product is available. In other words, two pence on a
fuel which is not available would have no impact whatsoever, or
if it were only available in certain places. When you have the
fuel available then two pence will swing people very firmly onto
the new fuel where it is available. You mentioned a differential.
I suspect that what will actually happen is the ultra low sulphur
petrol will pass through the two pence. That will then become
the norm in the market and I suspect that the sales of the standard
grade petrol will collapse overnight. I cannot see people wanting
to buy it at two pence more than the low sulphur grade.

Mr Chaytor

259. I am very interested in what you have said
and you have described the way your company introduced ultra low
sulphur petrol last year. The conclusion I draw is that the tuppence
per litre cut is actually even more irrelevant because given that
you have taken the decision to bear the costs of the transition
to ULSP, given that it was going to appear on the forecourts anyway,
would not any motorists choose to have the ultra low sulphur version,
as long as it was marketed as a cleaner and greener fuel, regardless
of any price differential? If there is a choice between eight
pence per litre for dirty old-fashioned petrol and eight pence
per litre for clean modern petrol, is the consumer not going to
choose anyway?
(Mr Mumford) What we saw when we were introducing
ultra low sulphur diesel, which is a case study, was that at a
one pence differential the one pence effectively levelled the
cost of the fuels. At that the consumer was pretty ambivalent
and there was not much penetration. In fact at that point we were
hearing diesel users coming out with scare stories about it causing
problems with fuel pumps or it was causing poor energy efficiency.
There were all sorts of stories. It was not very clear cut. When
the differential then went up to two pence per litre, a very clear
customer preference swung in and everybody was trying to switch.
It was eventually put up to three pence and that extra penny was
irrelevant. By the time it went up to three pence, everybody had
already moved because of the two pence.
(Mr Beckwith) The difference between the one pence
incentive going up to three pence. At one pence BP had already
decided to introduce this fuel and for the bulk of our markets
supplied directly from our refineries, we were in the process
of introducing this fuel but not all other oil companies had decided
to introduce the fuel at that stage. The additional two pence
incentive effectively persuaded the whole industry that this was
the way to go. We think that will cause the whole UK market to
switch over to this fuel as the standard grade of unleaded and
that mechanism in itself, because it is available through multiple
channels, will ensure that the duty differential is passed through
because of competition.